R.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.1.2005 whereby the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, District Jaipur has framed charges against the petitioner for offences under Sections 341, 323, 325 and 308 IPC.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that one Nathulal Mali submitted a written report before the Police Station Govindgarh on 28.1.2004 wherein he claimed that both the petitioners came to his house armed with Lathi and Farsa and assaulted his wife, Smt. Narangi Devi. It was further alleged that Kajodmal, the petitioner No. 2, tried to hit Smt. Narangi Devi with a Farsa but the same was repelled. Initially, the police registered the case for the offences under Section 143, 451 and 323 IPC. However, after a through investigation the police submitted the charge sheet for offences under Sections 341, 323, 325 and 308 IPC. After hearing both the sides vide order dated 18.1.2005 the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jaipur, District Jaipur framed the charges as aforesaid. Hence, this petition before us.
(3.) Mr. Jhabbar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that according to the Injury Report of Smt. Narangi Devi, she has suffered five injuries in all out of which, two were fracture of bones, one was abrasion and two were lacerated wounds. All the injuries have been caused by blunt weapon. According to the X-ray Report, there were fractures of mandible and femur bone. According to the learned counsel, these injuries have not been attributed to the petitioner. Further, these injuries are neither on vital part of the body, nor they are likely to cause death. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the charge for offence under Section 308 IPC is not made out.;